Marxist faggot, increased capital investment and demand for skilled workers by firms created higher wages and the middle class. Fuck you, you union dick-sucking faggot.
Um, sorry Uncle Milton, labor is a market like any other. If workers band together for higher wages, they're somehow taking something from their employer or other workers? Really? So by that logic, when a business or organization owns and sells a scarce product, it's taking from money that consumers and other businesses can spend elsewhere. So it's okay for business to benefit from scarcity and free association but not workers? What fucking hypocrite.
@TheKeith1337 No you are completely misunderstanding- notice the first thing he says. When unions get higher wages by RESTRICTING entry- restricting entry is not free market- it requires government force! when businesses sell products, they can not use government to keep competitors down, at least not in a truly free market
@johnsurs22 Restricting entry between individuals and entities is perfectly acceptable in the free market or heck, any economic system. Contracts are largely about price certainty and that has an enormous economic value. I think you're trying to make a point about right-to-work laws. That's not what Friedman is talking about. His point is more general and more vile.
@TheKeith1337 Yes that 's what Milton is saying and no, that does not make him a hypocrite. In a free market it is reasonable for a business to raise the price on a scarce resource/item, it creates competition for that resource and offers an outcome by the person willing to offer the most. From an economic stand point, nothing is done without the cost of trade. You must know how much you are willing to trade in a free market to receive what you want.
@panama52009 Businesses raise the price of a product or service because there is scarcity and sufficient demand to match it (and they want to make more money). There could perhaps also be singularly or additionally be an increasing cost of production, or inflationary pressures. A business doesn't change prices for no reason or some high ideal of competition. It's purely quantitative.
@panama52009 Friedman is saying when workers unionize, they are "taking" something from the pie without contributing. If that is the case, than any form of cooperative organization entering into pretty much any arrangement or contract "economizing" finite resources is destroying wealth. So his point doesn't make any economic sense, nor does it make any moral sense either. Friedman's argument in this video is hypocracy, poor economics and/or series of lousy syllogisms. Take your pick
@TheKeith1337 I don't agree. Friedman is saying that Unions are taking from the pie without contributing because they are taking away from the maximum ability of employment potential in order to keep wages high for themselves. When a business is selling to the highest bidder a finite resource there is a winner and a loser, which is determined by the will of using purchase power. It does not distinguish between what people are going to use the resource for, but.....
@TheKeith1337 from an economic stand point using the simple study of behavior, when an item or resource is scarce in a particular area, but needed. it creates an increase in supply as more people will go into the market to supply that good, fulfilling the needs of consumers. Rather than keeping prices low, which drop motivation for producers to go into particular market and therefor not fulfilling the markets needs creating dead weight loss (DWL)
@panama52009 According to the foundation of capitalism, individual initiative and greed are the only driving forces behind economic activity. Full employment is of no concern to an individual business. Employment is typically an expense. So you are saying that employees should be altruistic and sacrifice for the greater good? Not very capitalist of you.
@TheKeith1337 Keith...what are you even talking about? Employment is an expense, yes! An expense that is worth it when the employee helps make the company profitable. Are you on drugs or something?
@panama52009 Keeping wages high through restrictive access as a union does is not any different from an executive demanding a retainer, signing a guaranteed contract and making a substantial amount of money.
@TheKeith1337 The difference between union restriction and a retainer is that a retainer is a contract independent of government. Unions only have their restrictive power because of government
Is Milton Friedman condemning that many executives get paid more in a solitary day than some his or her underlings will make in an entire year? Is that Pareto efficient? Is there not deadweight loss there? Yet Milton Friedman didn't make videos discussing these topics on PBS (irony intended).
Executives, being small in number, get paid the high market wage. The supply of CEOs is relatively substantially small; but the demand has increased over the past three decades. This created the high wages for CEOs. There are no wage floors for CEOs. Therefore, it is Pareto efficient. Unions on the other hand are cartels which push compensation well above market wages and reduce efficiency. Now, this is Pareto inefficient. Busting unions is the right thing to do.
@TheKeith1337 No you are misunderstanding. Unions use government force to ensure that businesses have to let them exist with power. In a free market, unions can exist and businesses can refuse to hire people in unions. Which side wins the negotiation depends on which side has more bargaining power. That's a free market. Right to work laws may not be free market in a strict sense, but they try to reverse what has been done that is already anti free market. But that's not what I'm talking about
@johnsurs22 In your "pure free market" unions could mandate as part of their contract that all employees have to join then union. Then you go on to say that although there are not yet truly free markets, you support implementing laws to destroy the property rights of of individuals to reverse the tide of unionization (even though this has happened in places with and without right-to-work). How unlibertarian of you.
@TheKeith1337 You don't get it; in a pure free market that doesn't happen. If it did, I would be fine with it. What I'm not fine with is government providing special protections for unions and THEN unions mandating that all employees join them. The unions are keeping their wages up through government support. It's not a free market- ideally, I would support repealing the union protection instead of right to work, but I'm not going to adamantly oppose right to work.
@TheKeith1337 Unions only have the ability to create agreements that require workers to join unions and pay fees because the unconditional existence of unions is already protected by government.That's why right to work is so important.Friedman's point is not that labor unions shouldn't exist. We all accept that in a free market they do exist. The point is that people shouldn't be convinced into protecting labor unions under the guise that they are all good.I really think you are misunderstanding
@TheKeith1337 What you think Friedman is saying doesn't make sense. Friedman clearly talks about unions in contrast with competition. In a free market, unions would exist, but workers would still have to compete, and unions would still have to compete with scabs. Only with government protection of unions can they create local labor monopolies
Idiot, if unions use the state to force employers to increases compensation above competitive market levels, it will lead to fewer hiring--as the price of labor in increased causes reduced quantity demanded of labor--and massive unemployment. The people who are affected are nonunion workers, private firms, and in the case of public unions, the tax payers. Until you can grasp elementary market dynamics, shut the fuck up and listen to the Nobel laureate, Marxist filth.
@LogicalFlawDetector My, my how angry. I should be properly deferential to a Nobel Laureate? I do hope you go around to every video with Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and chastise people calling them Marxist filth, too.
@TheKeith1337 As for "competitive market levels," I don't typically respond to pseudo-economic garbled nonsense, but please enlighten me: What exactly was the "competitive labor market level" for any industry or entity last year? What data and formulae did you use?
When your head is *occupying* your ass, it is pretty hard to comprehend economic reality. Let me explain it for you, occupunk: market equilibrium wages aren't static, they are dynamic as they are a function of prices in other markets. There is no single static market wage for one year. All *prices*--including wages, which are just prices of labor--fluctuate based on supply and demand. I don't waste time schooling impudent Marxist pricks. However, you are one exceptionally dumb occupunk.
@LogicalFlawDetector Correct, even if your eloquence could be improved greatly...the failures of governmental favouritism and assistance are direct causes of the financial crises we see in the world today.
@TheKeith1337 Unions enjoy legal powers above just "freedom of association".
Unions are cartels, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's when the government empowers a cartel with extra legal powers that they become a problem.
@TheKeith1337 problem is not that workers band together but that they try to get the government involved in it!
people can band together as much as they please but there cant be a law that prohibits a employer from firing that whole group if their demands can´t be satisfied.
can you see the differents?
and if all employers are such bad people who just want to pay the minimum job than why are there so many employers paying huge salaries without being forced to do so (i work as an engineer) :P
@TheKeith1337 The higher levels of unionization, the higher the levels of unemployment. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics on that one. If a Union contract requires a business to pay a worker $30/hour rather than the market price of say $15/hr, then the business can only afford one worker instead of two. Maybe productivity due to training makes up for the one less worker, but it leads to control of the supply of labor and I don'think you would argue that.
@TheKeith1337 In regards to your other statement, the difference is that the free market determines the price of the scarce good that a business sells and negotiation determines the price of labor supplied to a business by a Union. It's fair for a nuclear physicist to get paid more than a janitor because his labor is more scarce, like a scarce product a business might sell. He's not taking from anyone because it is freely determined. Now if a business is a monopoly, that's not fair
@TheKeith1337 Labor is a good that has a high supply in all areas except certain specializations which means that the cost of labor for most things would be low. There is someone always looking for a job and will work at a lower wage to get the job that they did have before. Whereas a resource that is sacarce is in low supply meaning the cost of the item will be high as long as the demand of the resource is also high.
@TheKeith1337 He never argued that workers should not allowed be unionized. He argues that government should not impose special rights and laws for unions.
Labor Unions are still acting like it's 1895, saying they're standing up for "The Rights" of the little guy. The difference is, in 1905 they ACTUALLY WERE standing up for human rights: safe working conditions, overtime laws, etc. Now, they're the mirror image of the robber barons: bullying, paying off politicians, asking for more pay and benefits while doing less work, then call their employer "greedy" when they open up plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt. What a joke.
@chillboner "plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt" Mexico is heavily unionised, which is the funny part(Although the cartels are making sure it reverses rather quickly).... Anyway, most of these companies don't do it out of 'going bankrupt'... it's out of this simple concept... Why pay a minimum wage of 7$ an hour in the U.S when they can pay 2$ a day in China for the same work? it's in the best interests of 'increasing profit' not on 'not going bankrupt'.
@chillboner "plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt" Mexico is heavily unionised, which is the funny part(Although the cartels are making sure it reverses rather quickly).... Anyway, most of these companies don't do it out of 'going bankrupt'... it's out of this simple concept... Why pay a minimum wage of 7$ an hour in the U.S when they can pay 2$ a day in China for the same work? it's in the best interests of 'increasing profit' not on 'not going bankrupt'.
@chillboner "plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt" Mexico is heavily unionised, which is the funny part(Although the cartels are making sure it reverses rather quickly).... Anyway, most of these companies don't do it out of 'going bankrupt'... it's out of this simple concept... Why pay a minimum wage of 7$ an hour in the U.S when they can pay 2$ a day in China for the same work? it's in the best interests of 'increasing profit' not on 'not going bankrupt'.
God bless the unions and the middle working class. I bet this guy never had to do physical labor in his life. It's people like this who want everyone working for minimum wage without insurance or pensions.
@WebTVnews7 You would lose that bet. Milton Friedman worker for as little as 50 cents an hour when he was young. That was actually not a bad wage at that time.
People who take minimum wage have no skills. When they learn skills, they make more money. This is the incentive that drives people to learn skills. YOU want to prevent people from learning skills. YOU are the problem!
"labor unions can only get improved wages, benefits and conditions at the expense of others"
"corporations can only get improved wages, benefits and conditions at the expense of others"
why is friedman arguing against one in favor of the other? either allow both unions or corporations to do what they want, or don't. Simple as that. Corporations and Unions are 2 sides of the same coin. Corporations can buy bill proposals, and unions can buy monopolies.
Friedman, fuck you. You worked for Augusto Pinochet, a dictator, and you openly oppose the idea of Democracy. You are a crony and you care not for the good of the people, you only worry about bottom line profits for the rich. You said that the solution for the poverty stricken people being on welfare is to cut welfare off so that they must scramble to stay fed. You are a devil figure to me, I am glad you are dead.
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in Reaganomics. The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
@LogicalFlawDetector Hey Asswipe, stop sucking syphilis-infected Corporate Dick! Go take a Big Corporate Dick up your ass... Ya Right-Wing, Reactionary Piece of Shit, Scraped Out of An Animal's Ass! I'll spam your shit right off the page! PUSSY-ASS BITCH!!!
@CosmicFork Are you saying that people have a basic right to freedom of association or are you claiming that people have a basic right to use violence in order to achieve their goals? Milton Friedman would agree with you on the first premise but certainly not on the second.
@CosmicFork Employees were already free to go find other employment if they weren't getting paid enough for their skill (and if their skill is not worth a lot that is their problem)....instead now, they band together like a mob. The owner, who usually risks a lot starting a business, is talked about like they are just innately bad, looking to fuck over the worker at any chance they get. Is that what you would do if you owned a business trying to be profitable?
@CosmicFork Gee, if it weren't for the facts that 1) the Wagner Act resulted in the Roosevelt Recession that helped prolong the Great Depression, 2) if unions didn't reduce employment by pricing its emplyees out of the market (death of Flint) or encouraging automation, 3) if unions hadn't cost the US economy, conservatively, $50 trillion that might otherwise have been used to employ workers and 4) Friedman only objects to state advantages given to unions, you might have a point. Instead...
@CosmicFork Unions actually result in fewer workers being hired because the businesses are forced to pay the workers more. Thus the employer cannot hire as many workers and we have unemployment. Even worse sometimes the jobs are simply outsourced overseas because the business cannot pay the Unionized workers enough. Unions used to be racist organizations before Civil Rights. You never can see the ill effects caused by trade unions, but they are there.
@kriskats19 alright I"m pro-free market but there are some things that I still need to "shake off" in economics. I still need an explanation/retort for severely high CEO payments against what workers are paid, is their job managing businesses viewed by stock holders and their "board of directors" much more valuable than the the rest of the workers who labor for said business and only want a "living wage"?
Sorry if I use any leftist-terminology but I'd really like to "clean up"
So your central point is that you think workers were *illegally* fired, therefore unions should have unlimited monopoly power in labor markets. Nothing wrong with firing useless public sector employees. The ideological consequences of Friedman have been indubitably positive. Real GDP per capita since the 1980s grew at 2.5% each year--well above the long term rate of 1.8%.
@CosmicFork as usually you "people" have no arguments.. the only think you can do is insulting others. go continue your low life and i keep on living my good life. the beautiful nature of things is that "people" like you will die off because of bad life, job, health, investment decisions. darwins laws at its best : )
@CosmicFork A right is something you have no matter what. Being given the privileges under the 1935 Wagner Act is different because they are not rights.
If workers ask for more than a company can pay and they are banded together in a union then the company will have to fire the union because they can't fire individuals in the union.
@wolfxda94 You're wrong, because by definition, a Right IS protected by Law. And the 1935 Wagner Act gives working people who create Labor Unions the Right to engage in Collective Bargaining, and even take part in strikes to support their demands. The Wagner Act is the most important piece of labor legislation enacted in U.S. History. The Wagner Act drove Business berserk! God forbid that the working class in this country be treated as anything other than disposable units of labor to be shit on!
@1963danno Yes, companies pick and choose the most skilled and reliable people and, because they have the desire to get them, they compete with each other to get them. This is why at one time the ONLY steel mill in the country with an 8 hour day (and a hospital for workers and their families and college courses for workers and higher pay) was a NON-union shop. You're assertion proves MY point.
@1963danno That there is less discrimination in unions now (as in companies - where the lack is even more certian) is beside the point. The history - well into the 1970s - is precisely as I described it. Unions CANNOT be escribed as a force against discrimination, And, in fact, because of the EOE intervention in the market, there may actually be FEWER opportunities fro minorities because the rules governing hiring primarily benefit women as opposed to minorities. Look it up.
@1963danno Yes, living standards have continued to rise. Is the best that you can offer "really?" whn faces with an historical fact? Living standards have risen steadily and almost without interruption since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution all the way up to today. Yes, the stagnating middle class myth has been utterly and completely shattered.
Yes cutting back on unions will create jobs. But they will also be jobs of grossly modest pay. Today People are competing with eachother for the best jobs, but the employers are not competing with eachother for the best workers, simply because there's too many workers and not enough jobs. Its important to get fair wages because it increases the spending power of the people who are working ,which will grow demand, which will encourage investing in new businesses,which will spurr job growth.
@cyborganic99 No, that is factually untrue. Today peple are competing for the best jobs AND employers are competing ith the best workers. This is what results in a MARKET WAGE, which has consistently risen (and is typically above the legal minimum even for entry-level positions in the midst of a recession). And it isn't demand that spurs economic growth but production and investment (which spurs job growth).
@FletchforFreedom So you think that in a free market a company can not have a dispraportionate amount of power. And you also believe that the people with money will invest in the people without money without demand for their goods.. reason and history tells me that thats false. Believe it or not there is a such thing as worker exploitation?
@cyborganic99 I'm telling you the research has been done extensively and it has been demonstrated that no such power disparity exists (the concept of "worker exploitation" being complete mythology). And people with money invest in the prospect of FUTURE demand, creating an entrepreneurial demand for labor that feeds that future demand.
@FletchforFreedom Worker exploitation is a myth??FALSE FALSE FALSE.. just look at the rober baron age, or captians of industry or the sweat shops overseas, not only were the workers exploited but also the consumer through monopolys and price gauging. Thats the closest thing to a 100% free market without collective bargaining. And it probly hurt companies $50 trillion dollars.I dont know what austrian statistics you look up, theyre wrong. worker exploitation does exist.
@cyborganic99 Yes, worker exploitation is a myth (as is the concept of the Robber Baron age which has been shown to be yet another period in which worker wages, working conditions and prosperity unequivocally improved (read 'The Myth of the Robber Barons" for a good summary of the research). Efforts to close so-called "sweat shops" are vehemently opposed most strongly by ... the workers in them. The choice they have is market wage work or none at all...
@cyborganic99 ...and the so-called "sweat shop" pays them more than they could otherwise make raising their living standards. Monopolies are almost universally created by GOVERNMENT, not the free market, which abhors monopoly as they almost invariably require state imposed barriers to entry. Nor is there any such thing as "price gouging" - only market prices. Efforts to reign in "price gouging" serve only to cause shortages and harm consumers.
@cyborganic99 And it's not "Austrian statistics, it's easily defensible economic research. The Vedder and Galloway study should still be easily found online. Again, the $50 trillion figure is a CONSERVATIVE estimate of the economic cost of unions. None of what I have said is even controversial. nearly a century of essentially unanimous economic research has destroyed the union-propoganda story of history (they didn't end child labor either, BTW).
@cyborganic99 the robber baron age was the closest to 100% free market? haha. if you have a few days free we can go through all the regulations(those arent free market things by the way) and other government meddling that went on. if you have even more free time ill talk about some of these supposed "robber barons" no one denies worker exploitation doesnt exist. corrupt people exploit others, and they are very succesful at it in every type of economic system.
@1963danno Union wage demands have resulted in shrinking employment where unions are most powerful, a chief reason why union power in the private sector has been declining (and living standards have continued to rise). They have spectacularly failed as an anti-poverty measure and were in many cases formed to prevent black laborers from taking the jobs of whites (simple history lesson). The facts, as usual, are entirely against you.
@1963danno It seems you are suffering from the ridiculous fallacy that your buying things "props up" the economy. The economy is not driven by consumption but by production and investment. The people providing the jobs (that you feel - not think - FEEL make too much money) drive the economy.
@1963danno The premise behind the underlying premise is ridiculous. The only thing that matters is that BOTH parties benefit (else the employment transaction, like any other, would not take place). The ONLY point that is germane is that the worker benefits because the opportunity is created at the point where his contribution generates a return to the employer. That this happens demonstrates that the business model works (as opposed to the BS notion of worker oppression).
I cant stand this new conservative movement that believes that we should just get government out of the way. While at the same time believe that the GOVERNMENT should also outlaw unions. A massive double standard. If your for less government intervention then you should be for unions. That is the private sector coming up with a way ,on its own, to make sure that the worker is getting paid what THEY ARE worth. Don't think for a second that this 100% free crap is at no ones expense.
@cyborganic99 Right wing ideology makes no sense: a) subsidies for "free markets" is called capitalism but for ordinary people is considered socialism and b) that gov't should be run like a business but, yet, sell off it's profitable assets.
@JoshMan522 Of course it dosn't make any sense. There is nothing wrong with asking for less government intervention in some cases. But they never adress the right areas. Instead of policing the banks and investment firms to keep them from manipulating the market at the expense of others, They would rather crunch down on the workers and take away any right they have to get a say in how much their own skills, and blood and sweat is worth. The Neoconservative system is bias to the wealthy
@JoshMan522 No advocate of capitalism/free markets is in favor of subsidies of any kind. And gobvernmnet CAN'T be run like a business and is overwhelmingly harmful when it intervenes in the marketplace (look at the disaster that is the post office).
@cyborganic99 Actually, no one is suggesting that unions be outlawed, but rather that the legal interventions in the unions' favor (mandated bargaining, closed-shop states, the NLRB rulings). Free association is wonderful. But, again, history demonstrates that working conditions, wages and living standards grew fastest in the ABSENCE of union intervention both internationally (where the US did best with least intervention) and within the US where union power varies.
@FletchforFreedom No, that is factually untrue. Now i dont believe in government intervention in unions because it can skew the basic bargain. But there are people out there, mabe not you, who engage in union busting. And im not saying unoins are free from corruption and negitive practices. But it only makes sense that in order to bargain with the collective power of a large business that the workers must consolidate their power to gain any leverage.
@cyborganic99 Sorry, every word I wrote is demonstrably true. The only justification for the argument that workers "need" to band together to negotiate with comparable power is "monopsony" - where companies have disproportionate power - which has been demonstrated not to exist in the marketplace. The leverage of simple competition is very real and more than sufficient else no one would ever be hired at more than the legal minimum and moving up would be nearly impossible - obviously false.
@FletchforFreedom just because we dont agree on certain things dont put me on the other extreme. I do not advicate unions in small businesses nor do i agree with some of the vicoius tactics they can take. Im just defending their right to exist. because they do play a vital role in wealth equality. If companies did pay their workers what they're worth unions wouldnt exist.
@cyborganic99 Again, I do not disagree that unions should have the right to exist, but the notion that unions would not exist if companies didn;t pay what workers were worth is absurd on its face. By that reasoning, everyone would belong to the same religion (if it weren't true, the religion wouldn't exist). And unions have cost the economy, conservatively $50 trillion that might otherwise have been available to create jobs and increase wages; they play no such vital role.
@cyborganic99 In fact, the research shows that while union workers make nominally more than their non-union counterparts (about 4%), it comes at a high price - the total pool of resources for compensation remains static so those gains come at a cost of lower gains elsewhere and lower employment in the unionized businesses.
@FletchforFreedom I will also say that companies will not invest in future demand (unless the demand is already there) so long as taxes exist. and I am sure that capital gains tax is here to stay. And even if capital gains taxes were zero im betting they still wouldn't invest in future demand as you say. supply side economics is a vicious fraud.
You know I used to believe in free market, until i saw how easily it can be abused. and yes government is to blame as well. The fed needs to go
@cyborganic99 If your theory of company investment were even remotely credible we'd all live in caves still becasue no investment would ever take place. That companies invest in future demand is not "supply side economics" - it's Econ 101 and is not limited to any one economics school - it's basic/
That the Fed manipulates the economy to enormous difficulties (such as the Great Depression and the current crisis) is certainly true but has nothing to do with the free market.
@FletchforFreedom No No No Thats just nonsense. Its the simple concept of trade.The three things. you need is a common problem, a solution, and the prospect that if you share this solution with someone he or she will be abled to give you something worth your efforts in return. in our case money. And yes what you explain IS by all reasoning when the demand starts with the producer TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS. And yes the fed does effect the free market, which has only existed in caveman days.
@cyborganic99 EVERYTHING I've stated is economic and historical fact, your desire not to believe it notwithstanding. In the simple concept of trade, each party has something the other desires and exchange takes place when and only when it is mutually beneficial. And even if what is slurred as "trickle down economics" hadn't actually worked (the ric got richer and the poor got ... richer), all I'm talking is Econ 101 - production ALWAYS drives the economy.
@FletchforFreedom Look, Believe what you want to believe. I actually do believe that both arguments are sound and deserve attention. But just remember economics is not a rational science. and it is also very difficult to determine what is historical fact and what was fabricated to support an existing belief. and if you are to convince me that you are right you must explain to me how the free market punishes sociopathic behaviors like fraud, price fixing,and manipulating company stock...cont
@cyborganic99 It's not about belief. It's about extensive economic study dismissed by those who simply do not like the outcome as "not rational". The market penalizes fraud (even when law does not - enforcing contracts is not economic intervention) as word gets out and consumers avoid those who engage in it, simple competition has always prevented price fixing (absent government intervention) and yu have to be more specific as to what you mean by "stock manipulation".
@FletchforFreedom even when word gets out ,which i knew you would say, fraud would still be prevelent because one can cut and run with the stolen money. price fixing is a real method of avoiding simple compitition, without government it social darwinism would ultimately create a monopoly. and stock manipulation is when an investment firm invest in a small business only to overvalue it, attract other investers and sell their share of the stock often killing the companies
@cyborganic99 Understand that there is a difference between socialistic intervention and law. The market prevents fraud among those who, in their own interest, wish to continue to operate in society. If word gets out that they are cheating people, they are irreparably harmed. That said, it is not a socialistic intervention to apply the force of law against criminal activity including fraud, force and intimidation.
@cyborganic99 Price fixing has been a common worry. the problem is that we are without real world examples in the absence of state intervention (such as the guild system in England and OPEC - both government attempts to do precisely that and both ultimately failures). price fixing doesn't occur in the marketplace because it is in the best interest of competitors to undercut the fixed price and improve theri condition.
@cyborganic99 It isn't a matter of social Darwinism (in fact the market supports both responsible and charitable behavior). Monopolies are nearly non-existent in the absence of governmental intrusion. The chief examples presented (typically prosecuted under the Sherman Act) actually involve short-term and beneficial accumul;ations of large marketshare by providing consumers with products at LOWER cost (Standard Oil and Micosoft).
@cyborganic99 And as for stock manipulation, the example you provide is exceedingly rare and nearly impossible (the "Wall Street" - movie - example of "so and so likes Blue Star" is not a real world condition). With the information available in the marketplace, the capitalization information about stock companies is readily available. And stick value does not alter the viability of a company (unless it is making financial bets on its own stock. The fundamentals still apply.
@FletchforFreedom Well you go on believing that. I'll go on believing that such mechinisms, although arn't nonexistant and do ultimatly do reward those who engage in good longterm business practices, are not powerful enough to deter of effectivly repair destructive behavior. Just as vigilantism doesnt deter theft.
@cyborganic99 Human beings invariably act in what they PERCEIVE to be their own best interests. The point is that neither you nor anyone else have the knowledge, wisdom or right to determine that their perceptions are wrong.
@FletchforFreedom And yet you think its wrong to impose ones will on someone else even if its in the formers best intrest. We all have at least a small sense of social justice. some things are just wrong, and i believe that moral values are not only a fair guide but a functional guide. absolute liberty is unsustainable and will more often than not end in tyrany. BTW i do respect your debating skills. and i dont think you dont know what ur talking about. this is prolly the most informed cont..
@cyborganic99 Of course it is wrong. YOU are not qualified to determine what is in someone else's best interest. NO ONE is qualified to determine the best interests of any other competent being. And liberty ends when the it infringes upon the liberties of others.
@cyborganic99 I'll be the first to admit that I am not always civil. I find that I tend to respond in the spirit of the individual with whom I am speaking so if you find my discourse civil and of value, give yourself credit as you deserve it.
@cyborganic99 I NEVER argued that the Fed doesn't effect the economy (albeit Fed action is not the free market) being responsible as it is for every economic downturn back to and including the Great Depression (except maybe the Roosevelt Recession driven by passage of the pro-union Wagner Act and the 1991 recession driven by the invasion of Kuwait. The free market exists wherever two parties exchange in the absence of coercion - and it works every time.
@ANTHONYENO Thanks! One of my favourite movies was "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando. It shows how a union can be good or bad. They can be horribly corrupt but they can be good and provide opportunities for people to be treated fairly and get their much-deserved piece of the pie.
@JoshMan522 Great movie! I believe society will see a growth of labour unions in the near future, this country was build by the men and women that unions represent. Had the banks been monitored by current day unions we'd see less of an economic crisis. They would have been accountable for the failure rather than blame it on everyone else but still have their bonuses to enjoy while the poor souls that get laid off struggle to feed their families.
@ANTHONYENO Thanks for your comments. I'm sick of the greed apologists online who exalt Friedman and Rand who promoted the sickest part of humans: unfettered greed. One needs to learn that while Darwin was promoting the survival of the fittest, Kropotkin and others in Siberia were observing and taking notes on mammals that truly helped each other survive and protected the weaker members. Part of who we are as mammals has strong roots in "bio-socialism." Unless we're cold-blooded like Milton F.
@ANTHONYENO I'm sure like minded folks are growing in numbers rather rapidly these days as it becomes glaringly obvious that the system we were taught to worship is dysfunctional at best.
@1963danno No I am worth a lot, and someday I hope to make as much as he does. You think small, and you live small, and you whine about it. Get a life.
@1963danno That is not your business or the governments. This is also quite revealing? Where is that money? You think it just sits int their house? ORRRRR is it invested in the stock market, other businesses? Even sitting in the bank guess what. Banks use that money to invest--and that makes things like LOANS possible, so people CAN have a chance to start a business or buy a home.
@1963danno Even if the "research from the Economic (sic) Policy Institute hadn't been discredited so frequently that no one takes them seriously (they're still pushing the disproved Card & Krueger minimum wage studies), that someone is more than 1000 times more capable than you (estimated from the percentage of the average worker wage you make) is hardly surprising and certainly not unfair.
@1963danno How is the worker getting the short end of the deal? You think if the CEOs made less then suddenty workers would be better off? Like the wealth they earned was just sitting in a pile somewhere, until they took it all? Do you even have a clue as to why CEOs get paid so much? I bet you haven't even the faintest idea.
@1963danno I can live with failing to check my spelling better than suffering from your problem (failing to check facts) any day. Thank you for demonstrating that the best argument you can muster is to complain about someone's typos.
@1963danno Yes, really. I am not responsible for your ignoance. Unemployment is as high as it is because the Fed created an artificial boom that busted and the current administration has followed a series of policies that have prolonged the pain for years. And the fact is the compensation has steadily and substantially increased for decades. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you?
@1963danno Oh on the contrary, I grin when I see comments like yours. Though it is almost sad--people like you, at the very bottom of human intelligence, completely outmatched in the arena of thought and idea, trying to pose as someone who has an idea of anything economic or political.
@1963danno That question is very poor. The reason is that snapshots of income don't tell the whole picture. At any given time people are at different points in their life. That employer (who according you should of started the business to make the same as what he could of made working for someone else....makes no sense but okay) probably has worked many jobs and worked his or her way up in skill, experience and education. Your question is actually quite meaningless.
@1963danno On planet earth (don't know where you're from), not only do entry-level jobs routinely sit above the legal minimum even during recession (due to competition for labor) and employes ROUTINELY make enough to buy a house, multiple cars and TVs, cable, etc., but the historical fact is that capitalism has been directly responsible for the improvement in living standards, compensation and overall prosperity over the last 300 years.
@1963danno Rarely? Really. Stop commenting. Either you say things like that that you know are factually absurd to be inflammatory or you are completely brain dead. Either way....no on cares for your drivel.
@1963danno Um...the employees also make money off the employer. Ya know, the person that risked their money, their time, on a business, or idea that may or may not work. You have a very narrow way of looking at things.
What he is saying is purely illogical, if the government just stopped interfering how is that automatically going to make all wages AND profits rise? He claims that the free market system will free the individual, but in reality it is just an excuse to get everyone to conform to the system, which is ironic because capitalism is meant to be the ideology of free choice.
@ComradeAH1994 I love reading comments from people who's ideas are so incoherent that they don't recognize the silliness of themselves calling someone else illogical.
It seems Friedman assumes that in free markets firms compete eternally and never gain too much advantage over one another. When a game is played, there are losers and winners.
@EllyMcCormack Um...China has a shit ton of other factors to consider. Nice try, but no one with half a brain will make the astounding leap from China having no unions to Milton Friedman was wrong.
@ALJR223 Rather than sharing why my statement was wrong, you just decry that its incorrect. Thats it. You make an ad hominem attack, try to condescend my opinion, hurt my feelings & all the while you haven't proven why my point is wrong. Bizarre. You don't want to consider other peoples opinions, you seem satisfied just using it as a precursor to start monstering. So, troll, cruise elsewhere and feed. I'm not interested.
@EllyMcCormack No, I didn't attack you as a person. I pointed out that what you are claiming is ridiculous. And I wasn't looking for a response from you, because I knew it would be a waste of time. And it was. Now good read a book and learn something.
@EllyMcCormack Actually, as anyone with about ten seconds and the tiniest of motivation can check, not only are trade unions not illegal in China, there are HUNDREDS (including the largest in the world) and workers are encouraged to join them. The facts are living proof that you are wrong.
@EllyMcCormack Anybody can make a mistake, but repeating a stupid factual inaccuracy when the easily researched facts are pointed out to you, doesn't do anything but make you look bad. Tarde unions are not illegal in China and, in fact, have not been so for several years. You simply can't get your facts straight.
@1963danno How would you define "decent"? Who should have the power to claim what is "decent"? Who should have the power to force employers to pay "decent" wages? By what means would a company determine wages for a certain job, other than by seeking out potential employees with the desired skills and seeing what they are WILLING to work for.
That all sounds fine in principle however the reality of the situation is that before labor unions workers were forced to work 18 hours a day in sweatshops and in countries without unions (like China) they still are. Without a labour Union a factory worker has no ability to negotiate with management for better pay and conditions no matter how productive he is. Under Friedmans plan the prices in the stores would be 20% less and the paychecks of factory workers would be cut to bare subsistence.
Labor unions have created continuous real wage growth in Australia. Fuck this union bashing arsehole
bigswano 1 month ago
@bigswano
Marxist faggot, increased capital investment and demand for skilled workers by firms created higher wages and the middle class. Fuck you, you union dick-sucking faggot.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
So brilliant. I can't imagine why anyone ever wanted to start a union in the first place. The world must have been a workers' paradise before...
Anyone else sick of hearing this propaganda?
evilsoda00 1 month ago
29 freeloaders disliked this video.
jjenson2006 1 month ago
Um, sorry Uncle Milton, labor is a market like any other. If workers band together for higher wages, they're somehow taking something from their employer or other workers? Really? So by that logic, when a business or organization owns and sells a scarce product, it's taking from money that consumers and other businesses can spend elsewhere. So it's okay for business to benefit from scarcity and free association but not workers? What fucking hypocrite.
TheKeith1337 1 month ago 31
@TheKeith1337 No you are completely misunderstanding- notice the first thing he says. When unions get higher wages by RESTRICTING entry- restricting entry is not free market- it requires government force! when businesses sell products, they can not use government to keep competitors down, at least not in a truly free market
johnsurs22 1 month ago
@johnsurs22 Restricting entry between individuals and entities is perfectly acceptable in the free market or heck, any economic system. Contracts are largely about price certainty and that has an enormous economic value. I think you're trying to make a point about right-to-work laws. That's not what Friedman is talking about. His point is more general and more vile.
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@johnsurs22 But if you want an example of government telling individuals and businesses what to do, right-to-work laws do exactly that.
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 Yes that 's what Milton is saying and no, that does not make him a hypocrite. In a free market it is reasonable for a business to raise the price on a scarce resource/item, it creates competition for that resource and offers an outcome by the person willing to offer the most. From an economic stand point, nothing is done without the cost of trade. You must know how much you are willing to trade in a free market to receive what you want.
panama52009 1 month ago
@panama52009 Businesses raise the price of a product or service because there is scarcity and sufficient demand to match it (and they want to make more money). There could perhaps also be singularly or additionally be an increasing cost of production, or inflationary pressures. A business doesn't change prices for no reason or some high ideal of competition. It's purely quantitative.
Continued...
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@panama52009 Friedman is saying when workers unionize, they are "taking" something from the pie without contributing. If that is the case, than any form of cooperative organization entering into pretty much any arrangement or contract "economizing" finite resources is destroying wealth. So his point doesn't make any economic sense, nor does it make any moral sense either. Friedman's argument in this video is hypocracy, poor economics and/or series of lousy syllogisms. Take your pick
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 I don't agree. Friedman is saying that Unions are taking from the pie without contributing because they are taking away from the maximum ability of employment potential in order to keep wages high for themselves. When a business is selling to the highest bidder a finite resource there is a winner and a loser, which is determined by the will of using purchase power. It does not distinguish between what people are going to use the resource for, but.....
Continued-
panama52009 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 from an economic stand point using the simple study of behavior, when an item or resource is scarce in a particular area, but needed. it creates an increase in supply as more people will go into the market to supply that good, fulfilling the needs of consumers. Rather than keeping prices low, which drop motivation for producers to go into particular market and therefor not fulfilling the markets needs creating dead weight loss (DWL)
panama52009 1 month ago
@panama52009 According to the foundation of capitalism, individual initiative and greed are the only driving forces behind economic activity. Full employment is of no concern to an individual business. Employment is typically an expense. So you are saying that employees should be altruistic and sacrifice for the greater good? Not very capitalist of you.
Continued
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 Keith...what are you even talking about? Employment is an expense, yes! An expense that is worth it when the employee helps make the company profitable. Are you on drugs or something?
ALJR223 1 month ago
@panama52009 Keeping wages high through restrictive access as a union does is not any different from an executive demanding a retainer, signing a guaranteed contract and making a substantial amount of money.
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 The difference between union restriction and a retainer is that a retainer is a contract independent of government. Unions only have their restrictive power because of government
johnsurs22 1 month ago
@panama52009
Is Milton Friedman condemning that many executives get paid more in a solitary day than some his or her underlings will make in an entire year? Is that Pareto efficient? Is there not deadweight loss there? Yet Milton Friedman didn't make videos discussing these topics on PBS (irony intended).
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337
Executives, being small in number, get paid the high market wage. The supply of CEOs is relatively substantially small; but the demand has increased over the past three decades. This created the high wages for CEOs. There are no wage floors for CEOs. Therefore, it is Pareto efficient. Unions on the other hand are cartels which push compensation well above market wages and reduce efficiency. Now, this is Pareto inefficient. Busting unions is the right thing to do.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 No you are misunderstanding. Unions use government force to ensure that businesses have to let them exist with power. In a free market, unions can exist and businesses can refuse to hire people in unions. Which side wins the negotiation depends on which side has more bargaining power. That's a free market. Right to work laws may not be free market in a strict sense, but they try to reverse what has been done that is already anti free market. But that's not what I'm talking about
johnsurs22 1 month ago
@johnsurs22 In your "pure free market" unions could mandate as part of their contract that all employees have to join then union. Then you go on to say that although there are not yet truly free markets, you support implementing laws to destroy the property rights of of individuals to reverse the tide of unionization (even though this has happened in places with and without right-to-work). How unlibertarian of you.
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 You don't get it; in a pure free market that doesn't happen. If it did, I would be fine with it. What I'm not fine with is government providing special protections for unions and THEN unions mandating that all employees join them. The unions are keeping their wages up through government support. It's not a free market- ideally, I would support repealing the union protection instead of right to work, but I'm not going to adamantly oppose right to work.
johnsurs22 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 Unions only have the ability to create agreements that require workers to join unions and pay fees because the unconditional existence of unions is already protected by government.That's why right to work is so important.Friedman's point is not that labor unions shouldn't exist. We all accept that in a free market they do exist. The point is that people shouldn't be convinced into protecting labor unions under the guise that they are all good.I really think you are misunderstanding
johnsurs22 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 What you think Friedman is saying doesn't make sense. Friedman clearly talks about unions in contrast with competition. In a free market, unions would exist, but workers would still have to compete, and unions would still have to compete with scabs. Only with government protection of unions can they create local labor monopolies
johnsurs22 1 month ago
Tell me Keith, if you owned a business, do you think you should or should not have the right hire who you want to and pay them what you want to?
ALJR223 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337
Idiot, if unions use the state to force employers to increases compensation above competitive market levels, it will lead to fewer hiring--as the price of labor in increased causes reduced quantity demanded of labor--and massive unemployment. The people who are affected are nonunion workers, private firms, and in the case of public unions, the tax payers. Until you can grasp elementary market dynamics, shut the fuck up and listen to the Nobel laureate, Marxist filth.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector My, my how angry. I should be properly deferential to a Nobel Laureate? I do hope you go around to every video with Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and chastise people calling them Marxist filth, too.
Cont'd...
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 As for "competitive market levels," I don't typically respond to pseudo-economic garbled nonsense, but please enlighten me: What exactly was the "competitive labor market level" for any industry or entity last year? What data and formulae did you use?
TheKeith1337 1 month ago
When your head is *occupying* your ass, it is pretty hard to comprehend economic reality. Let me explain it for you, occupunk: market equilibrium wages aren't static, they are dynamic as they are a function of prices in other markets. There is no single static market wage for one year. All *prices*--including wages, which are just prices of labor--fluctuate based on supply and demand. I don't waste time schooling impudent Marxist pricks. However, you are one exceptionally dumb occupunk.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@LogicalFlawDetector Correct, even if your eloquence could be improved greatly...the failures of governmental favouritism and assistance are direct causes of the financial crises we see in the world today.
jozzo6 2 weeks ago
@TheKeith1337 Paul "we need a fake alien invasion" Krugman? Paul "9/11 has positive economic consequences" Krugman?
Get out of here.
diurdi 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 Unions enjoy legal powers above just "freedom of association".
Unions are cartels, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's when the government empowers a cartel with extra legal powers that they become a problem.
diurdi 1 month ago
@TheKeith1337 problem is not that workers band together but that they try to get the government involved in it!
people can band together as much as they please but there cant be a law that prohibits a employer from firing that whole group if their demands can´t be satisfied.
can you see the differents?
and if all employers are such bad people who just want to pay the minimum job than why are there so many employers paying huge salaries without being forced to do so (i work as an engineer) :P
BadWithNames123 1 week ago
@BadWithNames123 Not all employers are bad people...duh, no one is saying that
AliceNchainz011 1 week ago
@TheKeith1337 there are also no laws that you have to pay big $ to a company who sells a scarecity product.. if you dont want it you dont buy it.
so why should there be a law how much they have to pay their employee..
you socialist and your hypocrisy .. o0
BadWithNames123 1 week ago
@TheKeith1337 how does a business acquire such a monopoly?
jpkm123 1 week ago
@TheKeith1337 The higher levels of unionization, the higher the levels of unemployment. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics on that one. If a Union contract requires a business to pay a worker $30/hour rather than the market price of say $15/hr, then the business can only afford one worker instead of two. Maybe productivity due to training makes up for the one less worker, but it leads to control of the supply of labor and I don'think you would argue that.
highwaytohell13 1 week ago
@TheKeith1337 In regards to your other statement, the difference is that the free market determines the price of the scarce good that a business sells and negotiation determines the price of labor supplied to a business by a Union. It's fair for a nuclear physicist to get paid more than a janitor because his labor is more scarce, like a scarce product a business might sell. He's not taking from anyone because it is freely determined. Now if a business is a monopoly, that's not fair
highwaytohell13 1 week ago
@TheKeith1337 Labor is a good that has a high supply in all areas except certain specializations which means that the cost of labor for most things would be low. There is someone always looking for a job and will work at a lower wage to get the job that they did have before. Whereas a resource that is sacarce is in low supply meaning the cost of the item will be high as long as the demand of the resource is also high.
wolfxda94 6 days ago
Comment removed
TheShaniqua1992 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKeith1337 He never argued that workers should not allowed be unionized. He argues that government should not impose special rights and laws for unions.
TheShaniqua1992 3 days ago
Labor Unions are still acting like it's 1895, saying they're standing up for "The Rights" of the little guy. The difference is, in 1905 they ACTUALLY WERE standing up for human rights: safe working conditions, overtime laws, etc. Now, they're the mirror image of the robber barons: bullying, paying off politicians, asking for more pay and benefits while doing less work, then call their employer "greedy" when they open up plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt. What a joke.
chillboner 2 months ago
@chillboner "plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt" Mexico is heavily unionised, which is the funny part(Although the cartels are making sure it reverses rather quickly).... Anyway, most of these companies don't do it out of 'going bankrupt'... it's out of this simple concept... Why pay a minimum wage of 7$ an hour in the U.S when they can pay 2$ a day in China for the same work? it's in the best interests of 'increasing profit' not on 'not going bankrupt'.
luciferiexcelsil 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chillboner "plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt" Mexico is heavily unionised, which is the funny part(Although the cartels are making sure it reverses rather quickly).... Anyway, most of these companies don't do it out of 'going bankrupt'... it's out of this simple concept... Why pay a minimum wage of 7$ an hour in the U.S when they can pay 2$ a day in China for the same work? it's in the best interests of 'increasing profit' not on 'not going bankrupt'.
luciferiexcelsil 1 month ago
@chillboner "plants in Mexico because the company is almost bankrupt" Mexico is heavily unionised, which is the funny part(Although the cartels are making sure it reverses rather quickly).... Anyway, most of these companies don't do it out of 'going bankrupt'... it's out of this simple concept... Why pay a minimum wage of 7$ an hour in the U.S when they can pay 2$ a day in China for the same work? it's in the best interests of 'increasing profit' not on 'not going bankrupt'.
luciferiexcelsil 1 month ago
He is just telling the facts, not condemning the right to come together to petition the employer.
DustyCHK 2 months ago
lol, propaganda much?
devinthrash 2 months ago
God bless the unions and the middle working class. I bet this guy never had to do physical labor in his life. It's people like this who want everyone working for minimum wage without insurance or pensions.
WebTVnews7 2 months ago
@WebTVnews7 You would lose that bet. Milton Friedman worker for as little as 50 cents an hour when he was young. That was actually not a bad wage at that time.
People who take minimum wage have no skills. When they learn skills, they make more money. This is the incentive that drives people to learn skills. YOU want to prevent people from learning skills. YOU are the problem!
jjenson2006 1 month ago
Man, I can't wait to earn that big raise at McDonalds through the free market!
Spudst3r 2 months ago
Comment removed
devinthrash 2 months ago
@Spudst3r You're going to have to, we don't have a free market. lol
DustyCHK 2 months ago
lol at the flaming in the comments.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
"labor unions can only get improved wages, benefits and conditions at the expense of others"
"corporations can only get improved wages, benefits and conditions at the expense of others"
why is friedman arguing against one in favor of the other? either allow both unions or corporations to do what they want, or don't. Simple as that. Corporations and Unions are 2 sides of the same coin. Corporations can buy bill proposals, and unions can buy monopolies.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
Friedman, fuck you. You worked for Augusto Pinochet, a dictator, and you openly oppose the idea of Democracy. You are a crony and you care not for the good of the people, you only worry about bottom line profits for the rich. You said that the solution for the poverty stricken people being on welfare is to cut welfare off so that they must scramble to stay fed. You are a devil figure to me, I am glad you are dead.
bodinian 2 months ago
@bodinian Nothing about Democracy is good really.
DustyCHK 2 months ago
@DustyCHK Then you're gonna love fascism!
bodinian 2 months ago
Let's talk about Friedman's ideological consequences on the real world, as seen in Reaganomics. The effort to undermine and destroy Labor Unions peaked in the "Reagan Years". I lived through those years, and only Margaret Thatcher succeeded in smashing down workers in England better! Managements goal has always been to undermine the basic rights guaranteed by The 1935 Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act. The basic method of this Anti-Union War is illegally firing thousands of workers!
CosmicFork 2 months ago 36
@CosmicFork
Hey faggot, stop spamming Friedman videos and get a fucking life. Go choke on Rachel Maddow's dick and shut the fuck up.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector Hey Asswipe, stop sucking syphilis-infected Corporate Dick! Go take a Big Corporate Dick up your ass... Ya Right-Wing, Reactionary Piece of Shit, Scraped Out of An Animal's Ass! I'll spam your shit right off the page! PUSSY-ASS BITCH!!!
CosmicFork 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Are you saying that people have a basic right to freedom of association or are you claiming that people have a basic right to use violence in order to achieve their goals? Milton Friedman would agree with you on the first premise but certainly not on the second.
firebadger101 2 months ago
@CosmicFork Not destroying labor unions but eliminating special privileges for labor unions- there's a difference
johnsurs22 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Employees were already free to go find other employment if they weren't getting paid enough for their skill (and if their skill is not worth a lot that is their problem)....instead now, they band together like a mob. The owner, who usually risks a lot starting a business, is talked about like they are just innately bad, looking to fuck over the worker at any chance they get. Is that what you would do if you owned a business trying to be profitable?
ALJR223 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Gee, if it weren't for the facts that 1) the Wagner Act resulted in the Roosevelt Recession that helped prolong the Great Depression, 2) if unions didn't reduce employment by pricing its emplyees out of the market (death of Flint) or encouraging automation, 3) if unions hadn't cost the US economy, conservatively, $50 trillion that might otherwise have been used to employ workers and 4) Friedman only objects to state advantages given to unions, you might have a point. Instead...
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@CosmicFork Unions actually result in fewer workers being hired because the businesses are forced to pay the workers more. Thus the employer cannot hire as many workers and we have unemployment. Even worse sometimes the jobs are simply outsourced overseas because the business cannot pay the Unionized workers enough. Unions used to be racist organizations before Civil Rights. You never can see the ill effects caused by trade unions, but they are there.
kriskats19 1 month ago
@kriskats19 alright I"m pro-free market but there are some things that I still need to "shake off" in economics. I still need an explanation/retort for severely high CEO payments against what workers are paid, is their job managing businesses viewed by stock holders and their "board of directors" much more valuable than the the rest of the workers who labor for said business and only want a "living wage"?
Sorry if I use any leftist-terminology but I'd really like to "clean up"
kmelfina 1 month ago
@CosmicFork
So your central point is that you think workers were *illegally* fired, therefore unions should have unlimited monopoly power in labor markets. Nothing wrong with firing useless public sector employees. The ideological consequences of Friedman have been indubitably positive. Real GDP per capita since the 1980s grew at 2.5% each year--well above the long term rate of 1.8%.
LogicalFlawDetector 1 month ago
@CosmicFork 1935 my ass.. the united states have been founded in 1776..
BadWithNames123 1 week ago
@BadWithNames123 You're an idiot. Take a Hike!
CosmicFork 1 week ago
@CosmicFork as usually you "people" have no arguments.. the only think you can do is insulting others. go continue your low life and i keep on living my good life. the beautiful nature of things is that "people" like you will die off because of bad life, job, health, investment decisions. darwins laws at its best : )
BadWithNames123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CosmicFork 1935 my ass.. the united states have been founded in 1776..
BadWithNames123 1 week ago
@CosmicFork A right is something you have no matter what. Being given the privileges under the 1935 Wagner Act is different because they are not rights.
If workers ask for more than a company can pay and they are banded together in a union then the company will have to fire the union because they can't fire individuals in the union.
wolfxda94 6 days ago
@wolfxda94 You're wrong, because by definition, a Right IS protected by Law. And the 1935 Wagner Act gives working people who create Labor Unions the Right to engage in Collective Bargaining, and even take part in strikes to support their demands. The Wagner Act is the most important piece of labor legislation enacted in U.S. History. The Wagner Act drove Business berserk! God forbid that the working class in this country be treated as anything other than disposable units of labor to be shit on!
CosmicFork 2 days ago 2
@CosmicFork Because it's some how illegal to fire workers who work for you... What a load of crap
MRKetter81 5 days ago
@CosmicFork
Unions are there to look after their members, not the unemployed.
TheShaniqua1992 3 days ago
@TheShaniqua1992 "Free-Market", Fantasy-Land, Kiddy states the obvious. LOL, What a DumbShit!
CosmicFork 2 days ago
@1963danno Yes, companies pick and choose the most skilled and reliable people and, because they have the desire to get them, they compete with each other to get them. This is why at one time the ONLY steel mill in the country with an 8 hour day (and a hospital for workers and their families and college courses for workers and higher pay) was a NON-union shop. You're assertion proves MY point.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno That there is less discrimination in unions now (as in companies - where the lack is even more certian) is beside the point. The history - well into the 1970s - is precisely as I described it. Unions CANNOT be escribed as a force against discrimination, And, in fact, because of the EOE intervention in the market, there may actually be FEWER opportunities fro minorities because the rules governing hiring primarily benefit women as opposed to minorities. Look it up.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno Yes, living standards have continued to rise. Is the best that you can offer "really?" whn faces with an historical fact? Living standards have risen steadily and almost without interruption since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution all the way up to today. Yes, the stagnating middle class myth has been utterly and completely shattered.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno Thanks
cyborganic99 2 months ago
Yes cutting back on unions will create jobs. But they will also be jobs of grossly modest pay. Today People are competing with eachother for the best jobs, but the employers are not competing with eachother for the best workers, simply because there's too many workers and not enough jobs. Its important to get fair wages because it increases the spending power of the people who are working ,which will grow demand, which will encourage investing in new businesses,which will spurr job growth.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 No, that is factually untrue. Today peple are competing for the best jobs AND employers are competing ith the best workers. This is what results in a MARKET WAGE, which has consistently risen (and is typically above the legal minimum even for entry-level positions in the midst of a recession). And it isn't demand that spurs economic growth but production and investment (which spurs job growth).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So you think that in a free market a company can not have a dispraportionate amount of power. And you also believe that the people with money will invest in the people without money without demand for their goods.. reason and history tells me that thats false. Believe it or not there is a such thing as worker exploitation?
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 I'm telling you the research has been done extensively and it has been demonstrated that no such power disparity exists (the concept of "worker exploitation" being complete mythology). And people with money invest in the prospect of FUTURE demand, creating an entrepreneurial demand for labor that feeds that future demand.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Worker exploitation is a myth??FALSE FALSE FALSE.. just look at the rober baron age, or captians of industry or the sweat shops overseas, not only were the workers exploited but also the consumer through monopolys and price gauging. Thats the closest thing to a 100% free market without collective bargaining. And it probly hurt companies $50 trillion dollars.I dont know what austrian statistics you look up, theyre wrong. worker exploitation does exist.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Yes, worker exploitation is a myth (as is the concept of the Robber Baron age which has been shown to be yet another period in which worker wages, working conditions and prosperity unequivocally improved (read 'The Myth of the Robber Barons" for a good summary of the research). Efforts to close so-called "sweat shops" are vehemently opposed most strongly by ... the workers in them. The choice they have is market wage work or none at all...
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 ...and the so-called "sweat shop" pays them more than they could otherwise make raising their living standards. Monopolies are almost universally created by GOVERNMENT, not the free market, which abhors monopoly as they almost invariably require state imposed barriers to entry. Nor is there any such thing as "price gouging" - only market prices. Efforts to reign in "price gouging" serve only to cause shortages and harm consumers.
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 And it's not "Austrian statistics, it's easily defensible economic research. The Vedder and Galloway study should still be easily found online. Again, the $50 trillion figure is a CONSERVATIVE estimate of the economic cost of unions. None of what I have said is even controversial. nearly a century of essentially unanimous economic research has destroyed the union-propoganda story of history (they didn't end child labor either, BTW).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 the robber baron age was the closest to 100% free market? haha. if you have a few days free we can go through all the regulations(those arent free market things by the way) and other government meddling that went on. if you have even more free time ill talk about some of these supposed "robber barons" no one denies worker exploitation doesnt exist. corrupt people exploit others, and they are very succesful at it in every type of economic system.
elwoodwinn 2 months ago
@1963danno Union wage demands have resulted in shrinking employment where unions are most powerful, a chief reason why union power in the private sector has been declining (and living standards have continued to rise). They have spectacularly failed as an anti-poverty measure and were in many cases formed to prevent black laborers from taking the jobs of whites (simple history lesson). The facts, as usual, are entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno It seems you are suffering from the ridiculous fallacy that your buying things "props up" the economy. The economy is not driven by consumption but by production and investment. The people providing the jobs (that you feel - not think - FEEL make too much money) drive the economy.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno The premise behind the underlying premise is ridiculous. The only thing that matters is that BOTH parties benefit (else the employment transaction, like any other, would not take place). The ONLY point that is germane is that the worker benefits because the opportunity is created at the point where his contribution generates a return to the employer. That this happens demonstrates that the business model works (as opposed to the BS notion of worker oppression).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
I cant stand this new conservative movement that believes that we should just get government out of the way. While at the same time believe that the GOVERNMENT should also outlaw unions. A massive double standard. If your for less government intervention then you should be for unions. That is the private sector coming up with a way ,on its own, to make sure that the worker is getting paid what THEY ARE worth. Don't think for a second that this 100% free crap is at no ones expense.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Right wing ideology makes no sense: a) subsidies for "free markets" is called capitalism but for ordinary people is considered socialism and b) that gov't should be run like a business but, yet, sell off it's profitable assets.
JoshMan522 2 months ago
@JoshMan522 Of course it dosn't make any sense. There is nothing wrong with asking for less government intervention in some cases. But they never adress the right areas. Instead of policing the banks and investment firms to keep them from manipulating the market at the expense of others, They would rather crunch down on the workers and take away any right they have to get a say in how much their own skills, and blood and sweat is worth. The Neoconservative system is bias to the wealthy
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@JoshMan522 No advocate of capitalism/free markets is in favor of subsidies of any kind. And gobvernmnet CAN'T be run like a business and is overwhelmingly harmful when it intervenes in the marketplace (look at the disaster that is the post office).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Actually, no one is suggesting that unions be outlawed, but rather that the legal interventions in the unions' favor (mandated bargaining, closed-shop states, the NLRB rulings). Free association is wonderful. But, again, history demonstrates that working conditions, wages and living standards grew fastest in the ABSENCE of union intervention both internationally (where the US did best with least intervention) and within the US where union power varies.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom No, that is factually untrue. Now i dont believe in government intervention in unions because it can skew the basic bargain. But there are people out there, mabe not you, who engage in union busting. And im not saying unoins are free from corruption and negitive practices. But it only makes sense that in order to bargain with the collective power of a large business that the workers must consolidate their power to gain any leverage.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Sorry, every word I wrote is demonstrably true. The only justification for the argument that workers "need" to band together to negotiate with comparable power is "monopsony" - where companies have disproportionate power - which has been demonstrated not to exist in the marketplace. The leverage of simple competition is very real and more than sufficient else no one would ever be hired at more than the legal minimum and moving up would be nearly impossible - obviously false.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom just because we dont agree on certain things dont put me on the other extreme. I do not advicate unions in small businesses nor do i agree with some of the vicoius tactics they can take. Im just defending their right to exist. because they do play a vital role in wealth equality. If companies did pay their workers what they're worth unions wouldnt exist.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Again, I do not disagree that unions should have the right to exist, but the notion that unions would not exist if companies didn;t pay what workers were worth is absurd on its face. By that reasoning, everyone would belong to the same religion (if it weren't true, the religion wouldn't exist). And unions have cost the economy, conservatively $50 trillion that might otherwise have been available to create jobs and increase wages; they play no such vital role.
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 In fact, the research shows that while union workers make nominally more than their non-union counterparts (about 4%), it comes at a high price - the total pool of resources for compensation remains static so those gains come at a cost of lower gains elsewhere and lower employment in the unionized businesses.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I will also say that companies will not invest in future demand (unless the demand is already there) so long as taxes exist. and I am sure that capital gains tax is here to stay. And even if capital gains taxes were zero im betting they still wouldn't invest in future demand as you say. supply side economics is a vicious fraud.
You know I used to believe in free market, until i saw how easily it can be abused. and yes government is to blame as well. The fed needs to go
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 If your theory of company investment were even remotely credible we'd all live in caves still becasue no investment would ever take place. That companies invest in future demand is not "supply side economics" - it's Econ 101 and is not limited to any one economics school - it's basic/
That the Fed manipulates the economy to enormous difficulties (such as the Great Depression and the current crisis) is certainly true but has nothing to do with the free market.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom No No No Thats just nonsense. Its the simple concept of trade.The three things. you need is a common problem, a solution, and the prospect that if you share this solution with someone he or she will be abled to give you something worth your efforts in return. in our case money. And yes what you explain IS by all reasoning when the demand starts with the producer TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS. And yes the fed does effect the free market, which has only existed in caveman days.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 EVERYTHING I've stated is economic and historical fact, your desire not to believe it notwithstanding. In the simple concept of trade, each party has something the other desires and exchange takes place when and only when it is mutually beneficial. And even if what is slurred as "trickle down economics" hadn't actually worked (the ric got richer and the poor got ... richer), all I'm talking is Econ 101 - production ALWAYS drives the economy.
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Look, Believe what you want to believe. I actually do believe that both arguments are sound and deserve attention. But just remember economics is not a rational science. and it is also very difficult to determine what is historical fact and what was fabricated to support an existing belief. and if you are to convince me that you are right you must explain to me how the free market punishes sociopathic behaviors like fraud, price fixing,and manipulating company stock...cont
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 It's not about belief. It's about extensive economic study dismissed by those who simply do not like the outcome as "not rational". The market penalizes fraud (even when law does not - enforcing contracts is not economic intervention) as word gets out and consumers avoid those who engage in it, simple competition has always prevented price fixing (absent government intervention) and yu have to be more specific as to what you mean by "stock manipulation".
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom even when word gets out ,which i knew you would say, fraud would still be prevelent because one can cut and run with the stolen money. price fixing is a real method of avoiding simple compitition, without government it social darwinism would ultimately create a monopoly. and stock manipulation is when an investment firm invest in a small business only to overvalue it, attract other investers and sell their share of the stock often killing the companies
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Understand that there is a difference between socialistic intervention and law. The market prevents fraud among those who, in their own interest, wish to continue to operate in society. If word gets out that they are cheating people, they are irreparably harmed. That said, it is not a socialistic intervention to apply the force of law against criminal activity including fraud, force and intimidation.
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Price fixing has been a common worry. the problem is that we are without real world examples in the absence of state intervention (such as the guild system in England and OPEC - both government attempts to do precisely that and both ultimately failures). price fixing doesn't occur in the marketplace because it is in the best interest of competitors to undercut the fixed price and improve theri condition.
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 It isn't a matter of social Darwinism (in fact the market supports both responsible and charitable behavior). Monopolies are nearly non-existent in the absence of governmental intrusion. The chief examples presented (typically prosecuted under the Sherman Act) actually involve short-term and beneficial accumul;ations of large marketshare by providing consumers with products at LOWER cost (Standard Oil and Micosoft).
cont
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 And as for stock manipulation, the example you provide is exceedingly rare and nearly impossible (the "Wall Street" - movie - example of "so and so likes Blue Star" is not a real world condition). With the information available in the marketplace, the capitalization information about stock companies is readily available. And stick value does not alter the viability of a company (unless it is making financial bets on its own stock. The fundamentals still apply.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Well you go on believing that. I'll go on believing that such mechinisms, although arn't nonexistant and do ultimatly do reward those who engage in good longterm business practices, are not powerful enough to deter of effectivly repair destructive behavior. Just as vigilantism doesnt deter theft.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I have no such faith that people will always act in their own long term best intrest.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Human beings invariably act in what they PERCEIVE to be their own best interests. The point is that neither you nor anyone else have the knowledge, wisdom or right to determine that their perceptions are wrong.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom And yet you think its wrong to impose ones will on someone else even if its in the formers best intrest. We all have at least a small sense of social justice. some things are just wrong, and i believe that moral values are not only a fair guide but a functional guide. absolute liberty is unsustainable and will more often than not end in tyrany. BTW i do respect your debating skills. and i dont think you dont know what ur talking about. this is prolly the most informed cont..
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 Of course it is wrong. YOU are not qualified to determine what is in someone else's best interest. NO ONE is qualified to determine the best interests of any other competent being. And liberty ends when the it infringes upon the liberties of others.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom debate ive had on youtube. thanks for not resorting to name calling.
cyborganic99 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 I'll be the first to admit that I am not always civil. I find that I tend to respond in the spirit of the individual with whom I am speaking so if you find my discourse civil and of value, give yourself credit as you deserve it.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@cyborganic99 I NEVER argued that the Fed doesn't effect the economy (albeit Fed action is not the free market) being responsible as it is for every economic downturn back to and including the Great Depression (except maybe the Roosevelt Recession driven by passage of the pro-union Wagner Act and the 1991 recession driven by the invasion of Kuwait. The free market exists wherever two parties exchange in the absence of coercion - and it works every time.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
I'll bet any one of us would love being offered a good union job VS some of the shit jobs we've had if we had to choose... just sayin'...
JoshMan522 2 months ago 20
@JoshMan522 Your absolutely right!!!
ANTHONYENO 2 months ago
@ANTHONYENO Thanks! One of my favourite movies was "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando. It shows how a union can be good or bad. They can be horribly corrupt but they can be good and provide opportunities for people to be treated fairly and get their much-deserved piece of the pie.
JoshMan522 2 months ago
@JoshMan522 Great movie! I believe society will see a growth of labour unions in the near future, this country was build by the men and women that unions represent. Had the banks been monitored by current day unions we'd see less of an economic crisis. They would have been accountable for the failure rather than blame it on everyone else but still have their bonuses to enjoy while the poor souls that get laid off struggle to feed their families.
ANTHONYENO 2 months ago
@ANTHONYENO Thanks for your comments. I'm sick of the greed apologists online who exalt Friedman and Rand who promoted the sickest part of humans: unfettered greed. One needs to learn that while Darwin was promoting the survival of the fittest, Kropotkin and others in Siberia were observing and taking notes on mammals that truly helped each other survive and protected the weaker members. Part of who we are as mammals has strong roots in "bio-socialism." Unless we're cold-blooded like Milton F.
JoshMan522 2 months ago
@JoshMan522 I absolutely agree with you!! I wish I came across more people like you! Thanks brother!!
ANTHONYENO 2 months ago
@ANTHONYENO I'm sure like minded folks are growing in numbers rather rapidly these days as it becomes glaringly obvious that the system we were taught to worship is dysfunctional at best.
JoshMan522 2 months ago
@1963danno Glad you love it. Nice to know there's more people out there that thinks Friedman was a sanctimonious turd bucket.
JoshMan522 2 months ago
@1963danno Wow, I thought owning a house and a car was so hard for the workers. I guess you are the exception to the rule.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno Tsk tsk. Still sounding like an angry, petty, indignant child.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno No I am worth a lot, and someday I hope to make as much as he does. You think small, and you live small, and you whine about it. Get a life.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno That is not your business or the governments. This is also quite revealing? Where is that money? You think it just sits int their house? ORRRRR is it invested in the stock market, other businesses? Even sitting in the bank guess what. Banks use that money to invest--and that makes things like LOANS possible, so people CAN have a chance to start a business or buy a home.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno Even if the "research from the Economic (sic) Policy Institute hadn't been discredited so frequently that no one takes them seriously (they're still pushing the disproved Card & Krueger minimum wage studies), that someone is more than 1000 times more capable than you (estimated from the percentage of the average worker wage you make) is hardly surprising and certainly not unfair.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno How is the worker getting the short end of the deal? You think if the CEOs made less then suddenty workers would be better off? Like the wealth they earned was just sitting in a pile somewhere, until they took it all? Do you even have a clue as to why CEOs get paid so much? I bet you haven't even the faintest idea.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno I can live with failing to check my spelling better than suffering from your problem (failing to check facts) any day. Thank you for demonstrating that the best argument you can muster is to complain about someone's typos.
Bravo!
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno Sounds like you have been too stupid in your life to go find better companies to work for.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno OOOO good one. You are obviously still making middle class income or less, in your 40s, which is why you are so bitter and disillusioned.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno Yes, really. I am not responsible for your ignoance. Unemployment is as high as it is because the Fed created an artificial boom that busted and the current administration has followed a series of policies that have prolonged the pain for years. And the fact is the compensation has steadily and substantially increased for decades. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you?
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno Oh on the contrary, I grin when I see comments like yours. Though it is almost sad--people like you, at the very bottom of human intelligence, completely outmatched in the arena of thought and idea, trying to pose as someone who has an idea of anything economic or political.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno That question is very poor. The reason is that snapshots of income don't tell the whole picture. At any given time people are at different points in their life. That employer (who according you should of started the business to make the same as what he could of made working for someone else....makes no sense but okay) probably has worked many jobs and worked his or her way up in skill, experience and education. Your question is actually quite meaningless.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno I love when the true viciousness of the brain dead left drones comes out.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno On planet earth (don't know where you're from), not only do entry-level jobs routinely sit above the legal minimum even during recession (due to competition for labor) and employes ROUTINELY make enough to buy a house, multiple cars and TVs, cable, etc., but the historical fact is that capitalism has been directly responsible for the improvement in living standards, compensation and overall prosperity over the last 300 years.
The facts are entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@1963danno Rarely? Really. Stop commenting. Either you say things like that that you know are factually absurd to be inflammatory or you are completely brain dead. Either way....no on cares for your drivel.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@1963danno Um...the employees also make money off the employer. Ya know, the person that risked their money, their time, on a business, or idea that may or may not work. You have a very narrow way of looking at things.
ALJR223 2 months ago
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
Friedman is so full of shit, he has turds falling out of his mouth.
JoshMan522 2 months ago
What he is saying is purely illogical, if the government just stopped interfering how is that automatically going to make all wages AND profits rise? He claims that the free market system will free the individual, but in reality it is just an excuse to get everyone to conform to the system, which is ironic because capitalism is meant to be the ideology of free choice.
ComradeAH1994 2 months ago
@ComradeAH1994 I love reading comments from people who's ideas are so incoherent that they don't recognize the silliness of themselves calling someone else illogical.
ALJR223 2 months ago
Exactly, economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. Milton never injected morality into that system.
groam6666 2 months ago
It seems Friedman assumes that in free markets firms compete eternally and never gain too much advantage over one another. When a game is played, there are losers and winners.
sugarface88 3 months ago
China is living proof this man was wrong. (There are no unions in China, they're illegal)
EllyMcCormack 3 months ago
@EllyMcCormack Um...China has a shit ton of other factors to consider. Nice try, but no one with half a brain will make the astounding leap from China having no unions to Milton Friedman was wrong.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@ALJR223 Rather than sharing why my statement was wrong, you just decry that its incorrect. Thats it. You make an ad hominem attack, try to condescend my opinion, hurt my feelings & all the while you haven't proven why my point is wrong. Bizarre. You don't want to consider other peoples opinions, you seem satisfied just using it as a precursor to start monstering. So, troll, cruise elsewhere and feed. I'm not interested.
EllyMcCormack 2 months ago
@EllyMcCormack No, I didn't attack you as a person. I pointed out that what you are claiming is ridiculous. And I wasn't looking for a response from you, because I knew it would be a waste of time. And it was. Now good read a book and learn something.
ALJR223 2 months ago
@EllyMcCormack Actually, as anyone with about ten seconds and the tiniest of motivation can check, not only are trade unions not illegal in China, there are HUNDREDS (including the largest in the world) and workers are encouraged to join them. The facts are living proof that you are wrong.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Nope, trade unions are illegal.
EllyMcCormack 2 months ago
@EllyMcCormack Anybody can make a mistake, but repeating a stupid factual inaccuracy when the easily researched facts are pointed out to you, doesn't do anything but make you look bad. Tarde unions are not illegal in China and, in fact, have not been so for several years. You simply can't get your facts straight.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
free market fantasies. Milton can fuck himself, POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
235RB 3 months ago
@1963danno How would you define "decent"? Who should have the power to claim what is "decent"? Who should have the power to force employers to pay "decent" wages? By what means would a company determine wages for a certain job, other than by seeking out potential employees with the desired skills and seeing what they are WILLING to work for.
ArmandoDiablo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That all sounds fine in principle however the reality of the situation is that before labor unions workers were forced to work 18 hours a day in sweatshops and in countries without unions (like China) they still are. Without a labour Union a factory worker has no ability to negotiate with management for better pay and conditions no matter how productive he is. Under Friedmans plan the prices in the stores would be 20% less and the paychecks of factory workers would be cut to bare subsistence.
Tadgh78 3 months ago